2. Miranda vs.

Arizona, 384 US 436

FACTS:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases
involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned
by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off
from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and
effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases,
the questioning elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that
were admitted at trial.
 Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police
station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by
two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial,
the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of
kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were
not violated in obtaining the confession.
ISSUE: Should the confessions obtained from a defendant who was subjected to
custodial police interrogation be admitted as evidence at trial?
RULING: No.
In the context of custodial interrogation, once warnings have been given, the
subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time
prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must
cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth
Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot
be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off
questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to
overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once
invoked. If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease
until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to
confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If
the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before
speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent.
According to the Court, when an individual was taken into custody and subjected
to questioning, the U.S. Const. amend. V privilege against self-incrimination was
jeopardized. To protect the privilege, procedural safeguards were required. A defendant
was required to be warned before questioning that he had the right to remain silent, and
that anything he said can be used against him in a court of law. A defendant was
required to be told that he had the right to the presence of an attorney, and if he cannot
afford an attorney one was to be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so
desired. After these warnings were given, a defendant could knowingly and intelligently
waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. The Court held
that evidence obtained as a result of interrogation was not to be used against a
defendant at trial unless the prosecution demonstrated the warnings were given, and
knowingly and intelligently waived. Effective waiver required that the accused was
offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Presuming
waiver from a silent record was impermissible.

3. PEOPLE VS. BARIQUIT, 341 SCRA 600

FACTS: On 28 June 1994, Baselino Repe and brothers Pedro and Cristituto Bariquit,
and brothers Emegdio and Rogelio Lascuña, were charged, in a Second Amended
Information, with Robbery with Homicide.
On 8 February 1994, the accused-appellants armed with bladed weapons, stole 1 gold
necklace; P3,000.00; and 1 blanket which were placed by the owner Spouses Simon
Hermida and Corazon Manabat Hermida on their wooden trunk, and killed the victims.
During the police interview with the relatives of the victims, they elicited information that
the possible assailants were accused-appellants Pedro Bariquit, Emegdio Lascuña,
Cristituto Bariquit and accused Baselino Repe. Acting on such information, the Police
conducted a “hot pursuit” operation and proceeded.
Pedro was arrested in possession of P480.5034, gold necklace and Japanese wartime
money and with his hand injured when Corazon resisted and stabbed him. Emegdio and
Baselino were jointly arrested, in possession of P800.00 each. Upon the arrest of
Baselino and Emegdio, the police immediately commenced investigation of the two
accused by propounding questions regarding the commission of the crime even while
they were still walking along the highway, on their way to the police station.
During investigation, Emegdio admitted that “they were together, but only Pedro and
Cristituto were the one(s) who killed the spouses. Based on such information, Emegdio
and Baselino were brought to the police station for further investigation, where Emegdio
admitted that Rogelio was also one of their companions. As a consequence, the police
returned to Isabela, where they invited Rogelio to the police station for questioning.
The trial court resolved to drop and discharge Rogelio Lascuña as “party-accused”, who
was 14 yrs. old at that time, for the purpose of utilizing him as state witness. Upon
arraignment, accused-appellant Pedro Bariquit entered a plea of guilty while accused-
appellants Cristituto Bariquit, Emegdio Lascuña, Jr. and accused Baselino Repe,
pleaded not guilty to the charge. However, accused-appellant Pedro Bariquit withdrew
his earlier plea of guilty and, entered a new a plea of not guilty.
In handing down the judgment of conviction, the trial court appreciated the presence of
conspiracy and relied on facts culled from the collective testimony of state witness
Rogelio Lascuña and other prosecution witnesses. Further, the trial court considered
the testimony of co-accused Baselino Repe for the purpose of establishing the element
of robbery in the special complex crime.
The trial court found the accused-appellants Pedro Bariquit, Cristituto Bariquit, and
Emegdio Lascuña guilty and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of death, while
Baselino Repe was likewise found guilty, but the trial court appreciated the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority on Repe’s favor.
ISSUE: W/N interrogation conducted on accused-appellants Emegdio and Baselino falls
under custodial investigation?
RULING:
Yes. The interrogation conducted by the police on accused-appellants Emegdio and
Baselino falls under the term “custodial investigation” pursuant to prevailing
jurisprudence and the provisions of Republic Act 7438. It may not be amiss to observe
that under R.A. 7438, the requisites of a “custodial investigation” are applicable even to
a person not formally arrested but merely “invited for questioning.”
In this case, it is of no moment that the questioning was done along the highway while
Baselino and Emegdio were being led by the police to the station. To put it differently,
the place of interrogation is not at all a reliable barometer to determine the existence or
absence of custodial investigation. Of striking materiality and significance is the fact that
the tone and manner of questioning by the police, as gleaned from the records, reveal
that they already presumed accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime and
singled them out as the despicable authors thereof.
Under these circumstances, the police authorities should have properly apprised them
of their constitutionally protected rights, without which such uncounselled admissions or
any other evidence obtained as a result thereof, or proceeding therefrom—the putrid
source—are deemed likewise inadmissible in evidence against the accused-appellants.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, accused Baselino Repe is hereby ACQUITTED
on grounds of reasonable doubt and ordered released immediately, unless he is being
detained for some other legal cause. As to the accused-appellants Pedro Bariquit,
Cristituto Bariquit and Emegdio Lascuña, this Court finds them guilty of the special
complex crime of Robbery with Homicide and hereby sentences each of them to suffer
the supreme penalty of death.